.... You swayed me on the "permission" thing a few weeks back Tom...but the rest I just can't wrap my head around.
Ah shucks, you mean you only got "half converted" ? haha Nah, all your questions are good ones, and a challenge to a topic is always good to make one think
Perhaps if it was brought up at the next town hall meeting. What md'er is honestly doing that?....
No, that's not exactly the mental image of the concept (although I suppose that too could happen). the image of "pressing question" is where someone asks a city official (cop, park dept, city hall front desk, or ... whomever, via email, or in person, or calling, etc....). And then you can get a "no" (maybe) where it had never ever been a problem before. Ok hunter, you tell me: Does that "no" constitute a "rule" or "law" now ? Or put it this way: Does that "no" mean you can't detect? OF COURSE IT DOES (why else would you have asked, if you didn't need a yes or no answer?). Naturally you can debate them, and try to persuade them differently, I suppose.
So while that "no" might not make it to an actual printed rule at a city council meeting, yet .... it might as well be the same as a rule like that. Because a) it now precludes you , if you intend to keep-in-the-following of their answer, and b) guess what will happen when that same cop or city clerk sees ANOTHER md'r out in the field ? He'll remember the earlier inquiry, and subconscsiously think "aha, there's one of THEM" and start booting others. I've seen that happen before Hunter, and several places. Ie.: never a problem in the past UNTIL someone goes and asks.
..... It is a yes or no question that they will answer and not give a second thought about it...... .
Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. A cop, for example, might say "you need to ask the park's dept that question". So you call the park's dept. The clerk says "hhmmm, I dunno, let me as the department supervisor", etc..... So as much as you think it's a cut & dried yes or no, based on actual rule/law (rather than whim and feeling), it's not that simple.
........ Are people calling the National Institute of Archaeology and asking about metal detecting laws? That is the only place I would imagine phrases like that being tossed around..... .
1) perhaps they're not so silly as to "call a purist archie with this pressing question". Sure. But if there ever is a case where "cultural heritage" concerns were the "go to" reason for a law or rule, then.... pray-tell ... where do you think such buzz-words come from ? ARCHIE CONCERNS. So at SOME POINT (whether or not it was the md'r himself waltzing here there direct to the archie or not), it *could* end up on their desk, as one of the various departments to "sign off" on a question or issue. And we all know what they will say.
2) who said it was just archie concerns? The much bigger issue/reason for no's, at city and county level ho-hum parks, is rarely EVER archies concerns, to begin with. It's almost always damage, alter , dig, and deface type turf concerns. A few times it could be "harvest, collect, take" issues. So really then, the issue of archies is pretty much relegated to state and fed. level stuff.
.... There are metal detecting laws in place because idiots went and dug where they were not supposed to. ....
Woah, slow down here. Did you see the contradiction in what you just wrote ? Think about it hunter. If they "just dug where they weren't supposed to", then am I to infer from that that there was a law saying "no metal detecting"? Otherwise, how is it that "they weren't supposed to" ? And if there was, then .... why write more laws, for something that was already forbidden ?
Now if by that you meant that perhaps a specific law wasn't in place , but later one that MADE it specific, yes I can understand that. And to that I would say that if persons went in asking ahead of time "Can I metal detect", it doesn't solve that in any way. Because, think of it hunter: If it were true that some place *might* get their panties in a wad , because they think you'll harm the grass, then .... guess what their answer would have been, had you asked ahead of time ? It would have been "no". So what has been gained by asking ? If the place were "not supposed to" as your premise has it, then ... well gee, you're "not supposed to". Adding a specific law will have made it no more of a "no", than it already was.
No new magic laws popped up the next day. 
